Religious fundamentalists did not found the US. A myth has been promulgated about the Pilgrims in Massachusetts. Their spirit is found in the fundamentalists, but they were not an important voice in forming the basic law of the land. The first Thanksgiving and first English-speaking colony were both in Virginia.

The United States Constitution mentions neither God nor Christ in the preamble or in the main body. Because of the present social attitudes an atheist could not be elected president, but there is no legal prohibition.

The United States was not founded on the basis of the private religious convictions of the founders. The founders after extended discussion and debate wrote a Constitution that contained no references of any sort to religion except for the first amendment prohibiting an established religion and the banning of any religious test for office.

The Federalist Papers contains the political theory behind the US Constitution. It is no accident that the founders made only those references to religion in the Constitution. In Federalist Paper No. 10 written by Madison is the following:

"A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good."

There are five other references to religion in the papers. None of them express any particular religious views. The only concern about religion expressed by Hamilton, Madison and Jay was that its divisive powers be limited.

The Constitution was set up as a document that would be relevant for future generations. Provisions for amendments were made to add to and change those parts no longer relevant. In injecting his personal religious convictions into government acts the current president (I prefer not to name him.) has not followed the spirit of the founders.

To repeat

"Dan said
"Evolutionists have a philosophical base of atheism or materialism."

This is not true. It is a ill-informed slander of many fine minds.
. . .
Can't you imagine a god greater and more complex than that depicted in the old (or new) testament?"

Hey Fractelle,

Yes the finger wagging was interesting but no problems here.

I would hope that Mark Latham wasn't the last athiest contender for PM but only time will tell. You are correct in identifying the influence of religious fundamentalists and who could forget the parade at Hill Song.

I do see a rise in patriotism evidenced by growing ANZAC crowds and even the speeches made on the day. Past pronouncements have been about the futility of war now even in conservative Melbourne there is a real sense of triumphalism intruding. Marry that with the mantra of 'working families' touted by both sides and you have the three pillars I spoke about.

I'm not sure the future is as settled as you might think.

What evidence is there for Noah's flood? It appears the "modern" creationist has substituted one myth for another.

There is certainly doubt about the big bang theory and no-one, evolutionist or otherwise, is in a position to say this is near being settled. Stephen Hawking recently recanted on one of his own theories of cosmological development. The basic precept of evolution however is not under dispute among archaeologists, geneticists, astronomers et al.

Is there any evidence the universe or even the planet (or even a little bit of the planet) is merely six thousand years old?

Bennie,

The scientists who have come up with alternatives to the conventional Big Bang model, like Neil Turok with his Ekpyrotic Universe, have to explain the same evidence. They also (usually) make testable predictions, although these might have to wait for better space observatories. They are not Creationists. My point would be that modern science, from all disciplines, forms a reasonably consistent picture, although there can be disagreement about individual details and speculation around the edges. Noah's Flood was first seen to be an inadequate explanantion in the 19th century.

The Creationists try to exploit any disagreement as evidence that the whole project is somehow flawed. I will take them seriously when I see them making testable predictions and getting peer-reviewed papers published in Science, Nature, Physical Review Letters, etc. It is true that it might be difficult at first, as "extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence", but they should regard this as a challenge.

bennie,
You speak of ‘the basic precept of evolution’. I’m wondering what this might be, as the same word ‘evolution’ can mean different things in different contexts.

If by evolution, we mean the ability of living things to adapt to specific environments after favouring certain characteristics, then there’s no dispute. Everyone accepts those things which are observable, measurable, and verifiable.

If evolution means that all living things have descended from a common ancestor, then science as departed from that which has been observed, and jumped towards the realm of philosophy. This version of evolution is what is in dispute.

Michael2,
Part of the philosophy that supports the ‘goo-to-you-via-the-zoo’ type of evolution is the desire to arrive at only natural or materialist types of explanations. These must exclude the idea of a creator God a priori. I know too well that many Christians accept evolution. But to exclude God at the start of your investigation into origins is assuming, even if temporarily, an atheism by default, agreeing with them that the processes were all natural, following the innate properties of matter. Christians who say that ‘God used evolution to create’ may as well be saying that God used a method of creation in which he did not create.

You ask, can’t I imagine a god greater than that of the bible, the creator of the wonders of the heavens and the complexity of all life on planet Earth, who has kept a plan for renewing his corrupted creation, a plan with such empathy for the people he created that it included the decision to create himself as one of them and humble himself as the lowliest among them? No, something greater is difficult to imagine.

Can I ask you, when the Bible speaks of creation being restored to its perfect state, how it was in the beginning, do you think that could mean going back to the billions of years of waiting for life to appear, followed by millions of years of dog-eat-god struggle for survival waiting for the supremacy of those who rose above the weak?